Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
BALU @ BALA SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 502 OF 2007
Decided on : 16-10-2015
AIR 1945 PC 118; AIR 1965 SC 1260; (2004) 11 SCC 305 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The trial court held that the prosecution has established guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted all the five accused under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and various other offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed sentences for other offences.
The High Court modified the conviction as under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC qua accused no. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Accused no. 3 was acquitted by High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
The crux of this judgement is that in cases of criminal liability involving multiple accused, the presence of common intention must be clearly established for their collective responsibility, especially under sections like 34 IPC. The court emphasized that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan or acting in concert, which must be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused, rather than assumed. In this case, the evidence suggested that the accused acted individually and spontaneously without a shared premeditated plan to commit murder. The court found that the acts of the accused were random and not in furtherance of a common intention, and therefore, they could not be held liable under section 34 IPC for the murder. As a result, the convictions under sections that implied joint liability were modified to convictions for individual acts of causing injury, and the sentences were adjusted accordingly (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 1999, whereby the High Court, while maintaining the sentence, modified the conviction recorded by the trial court qua the accused namely Giri-accused No.1, Seenu @ Srinivasan-accused No.2, Balu @ Bala Subramaniam (Appellant No.1-Accused No.4) and Raja @ Kotti Raja (Appellant No.2-Accused No.5) as conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court acquitted Partheeban-accused No.3 of all the charges.
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that one Natarajan had a quarrel with Seenu @ Srinivasan-accused No.2 in respect of a chit transaction and Kannan-PW2 supported Natarajan and fight ensued between Seenu-accused No.2 and Kannan-PW2 about a week prior to the date of incident i.e. 18.05.1997. In the forenoon, on the day of the incident i.e. on 18.05.1997, Kannan-PW2, Ramesh (deceased) and one Kamalakannan went to the accused in order to settle the dispute amicably. However, during settlement talks, fight ensued between PW-2 and Seenu and Balu attempted to beat PW-2 and Ramesh intervened and beat Balu. Thereafter both parties left the place stating that they could resume settlement talks in the evening. On the evening at about 6.30 P.M., Kannan-PW2, Saravanan-PW3, Suresh-PW5 and Arumugam-PW6 accompanied by Nagarajan went to Sakthi Nagar at Uruliyanpet and were having the settlement talks with the accused. On the mid way, the accused persons were informed that their friend one Anand is being badly cut by the complainant party and the accused questioned them as to how they could attack their man even when settlement talks were going on. So saying, the accused ran towards the place and on seeing PW-1 and Ramesh coming in the opposite direction, Giri-accused No.1 allegedly shouted that Ramesh supports Kannan and that he must be killed and accused No.1 and 2 cut Ramesh with knives on his head and chased him. Partheeban and appellants beat Ramesh on the face with sticks, Giri-accused No.1 again cut Ramesh with knife and Ramesh fell down. When PW-2 intervened to save Ramesh, PW-2 was attacked and he sustained injury on his left hand and PW-2 ran away from the place. Accused No.1 and 3 chased PW-3 and accused No.2 assaulted and inflicted cut injuries on the head of PW-3. They also inflicted cut injury on Muruganathan-PW4, who was taking bath near a water tap. The witnesses ran away from the place and came back only after some time and they were informed that injured Ramesh was removed from the scene of occurrence by a police constable.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1, a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.152/1997 under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Ramesh and other injured witnesses were examined by PW-11-Dr. Baskaran in General Hospital, Pondicherry. On 21.05.1997, Ramesh succumbed to injuries and the case was altered to Section 302 IPC. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the five accused.
4. To substantiate the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, fifteen witnesses were examined. The trial court held that the prosecution has established guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted all the five accused under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and various other offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed sentences for other offences. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, accused preferred appeal before the High Court. Vide impugned judgment dated 15.07.2005, High Court modified the conviction as aforesaid in para (1) and partly allowed the criminal appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the testimony of PW-2 who is an injured witness is not believ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
